A British actor has been cast as Superman which is probably a sign of the apocalypse.

Jazz and comic books. Two forms of art that have the distinction of originating in America. Maybe jazz is a little out of date and only enjoyed by pretentious D-bags but those comic book things are still huge, particularly the film adaptations.

Now, if the fat cats in the United States want to outsource their already wealthy, profitable corporations just to make an extra billion here and there and damn the lower-class working stiffs, that’s fine, but outsourcing your super heroes is one step too far.

Batman, Wolverine, and the new Spider-Man are not played by Americans. It was never that big of a deal, it was forgivable, “the best man for the job,” you may say, but the news has come out today that the new Superman will be played by Henry Cavill, a British actor. That just doesn’t sit right, does it?

But why is it that it’s not that big of a deal when Brits play other super heroes? I could do my homework and write a long winded essay about how Superman was on the scene long before Spidey or Bats ever showed their sorry asses and he became a symbol of hope during World War II, or that his motto is standing for “truth, justice, and the American way,” or that his very origin story is an allegory for the American dream. But I won’t. I’m too lazy to write it and you’re too lazy to read it. Short paragraphs work so much better for both of us.

Richard Donner’s 1978 film, a spectacular classic, was wise enough to embrace all of the Americana associated with Superman. Maybe that’s why his film is the only Superman adaptation to date to be considered a great work of filmmaking.

Why is it cool to not care? I’m Canadian (Superman is a half-Canadian invention by the way), but if I were American I think I’d boycott the movie. Where’s the patriotism? If they got an American to play James Bond I’m sure people would be pissed off, so why not for Superman? Why do people want to insist it isn’t an issue? It is.

But hey, it’s fine if a Brit plays Superman, it’s fine if all the companies move to India, whatever, it’s all good, as long as I have my I-Phone. It’s cool to be open to anything because I’m just so awesome.

Anyway, I think this casting is distracting from the big picture anyway, and that’s that the movie can’t possibly be any good anyway. Zack Snyder is directing it, after all. How good could it possibly be. I liked Watchmen and everything but if ever there was a “style over substance” director it’s Snyder. Seriously, since when did he become the go-to guy for comic book adaptations? I’m sure I’m not the only one who saw the Watchmen trailer and laughed so hard I peed a little when he was described as a “visionary director.”

And that got me thinking. Zack Snyder is an American, I wonder if it crossed his mind if it would be a good idea to cast a non-American for the role. I wonder if he considered whether orĀ  not it may upset people. I’m sure he’ll give some interviews in the future to explain himself. But if he sees it as a non-issue, I can’t imagine the guy having a firm grasp on the character.

Ultimately I think it’s far more ignorant to act like it isn’t an issue at all than to at least acknowledge it. You can agree with this blog or not, but just don’t pretend it isn’t an issue and that anybody feeling uncomfortable about the casting is totally out of line. That’s like saying “When I see a person, I don’t see race or colour, I just see a person.” Yes, that seems all nice and everything but that’s one of the worst things someone can say. It’s our diversities that make us unique and every race, colour, creed, and nationality has its own rich history and ignoring Superman’s impact on American culture is pretty close-minded.

I can’t speak for Americans but if they cast anyone other than a Canadian to play Captain Canuck, I wouldn’t think twice about skipping it.

Batman 3 thoughts: new villains, Christopher Nolan’s involvement, and the late Heath Ledger

I guess since watching and reviewing all the Batman films recently, I just couldn’t get bats out of my brain. My thoughts always go to Batman 3. I think there’s a 2012 release date, but nothing else to go on. No definitie story, or actors, just that release date. And I wonder how they’re going to do, especially after the exceptional The Dark Knight. There’s rumours and everything, I’ve heard The Riddler may be in the next one, and even that there’s talks of Joseph Gordon-Levitt in the role. The Riddler seems like a logical next step, and Levitt is a great actor, and could surely pull it off.

But when I hear all these villain names being dropped, whether it’s Catwoman, The Penguin, or The Riddler, I feel a little underwhelmed. If this is going to be a trilogy, I’d like it all to go down on a more exciting note; it should have a finality to it, and shouldn’t start feeling episodic, which is the very feeling I get when I hear all those villains mentioned. Batman Begins was a great movie, and somehow, The Dark Knight topped it. I’d hate to think that The Dark Knight would be the high point in the trilogy and that the third one would be calming the waters. But The Joker is the absolute most popular villain in Batman’s rogues gallery, and seemingly his greatest challenge, so how could they possibly top the second movie?

You know who I’d like to see in part 3? Bane.

Obviously, the Knightfall story comes much later in the Batman mythology, but this could be easily overlooked and forgiven if done right. Nolan’s films never word-for-word, point-for-point followed the comics anyway, but rather just kept their spirit. If they could effectively work in Bane, I’d be one happy Batman fan, especially since the character was done such an injustice in the Schumacher film that dare not speak its name.

In my opinion, the only villain that even comes close to The Joker is Bane. He’s also an equal to Batman. He was born in prison, he spent years training his body and his mind. He’s just as smart and clever as he is incredibly strong. He defeated and humiliated Batman, leaving him crippled. Now there’s an interesting story.

There are other aspects of the Knightfall storyline that could be explored, like Jean-Paul Valley taking on the role of Batman as Bruce Wayne recuperates, and breaks Wayne’s rules by killing. It would make sense thematically, and further test Bruce Wayne in his crusade for Gotham. I’m not saying he should be in a damn wheelchair for the entire movie, but there’s something about Batman’s physical limits being found, and having to sit by powerless as his image is further tarnished that I find compelling. And Valley refusing to step down, and Bruce’s retraining, and their final battle would be very, very cool to see, and perhaps a very appropriate end to it all. Maybe.

I’d like to see other villains such as Catwoman or The Riddler included, too. It just doesn’t have to be Bane and Valley. The only problem, I suppose, would be casting Bane. Who the hell could do that? It’d have to be someone pretty built. I’d say Mickey Rourke would have been a good choice if he didn’t already do Iron Man 2. I don’t think he’d need to be cartoonishly muscly though. I can see the character being more raw and realistic, just like The Joker. Maybe it would be best to cast an unknown, and have the bigger name stars take on the Catwoman and Riddler roles. Then again, maybe…just maybe…Javier Bardem would work.

And no Robin. Who the fuck cares about Robin?

Of course, these are just my thoughts as a fan. Everyone has their own opinion and their own hopes of what to see in the next Batman film. My primary hope, above everything else, is that Christopher Nolan returns to write and direct it. Only he can do it justice at this point. I’ve heard many things about his involvement with Batman 3. I’ve heard he’s not all too anxious to do it anymore. I’ve heard since day one he’s conceptualized it as a trilogy, and that The Joker was very much planned to be a key part in the last film. Heath Ledger is gone from this world and now things are uncertain. But if this truly is Nolan’s last Batman film, and if The Joker truly is a necessary part, maybe they should do the unthinkable and recast the role. I loved Ledger as the character, he brought The Joker to life perfectly, and in new and exciting ways that I never could have possibly imagined, and in my opinion it will go down in history as one of the greatest performances on film, but it can’t possibly begin and end with Ledger. He’s not the first actor to portray him and there’s no way he’ll be the last, regardless of his popularity. Just like Batman and all the other characters in that universe, the character will always be bigger than the actor, and will live on forever.

The only question is, who would want to take on that role? Who would want to fill those incredibly daunting shoes? Some say maybe Joseph Gordon-Levitt could do it, seeing as how he is also a very talented young star and has some similar facial features to Ledger. Maybe Johnny Depp could do it. I know a lot of people have brought up his name as a possibility. Yes, Depp is much older than Ledger, but the makeup could easily hide that. The best thing about Heath Ledger’s incarnation of The Joker is that he seemed to be an indeterminate age, there’s no way you could tell that it was a 28-year-old playing him. Ledger played it far beyond the limits of his youth, displaying ageless talent. Many of Ledger’s closest friends and family members described him as an old soul. In a perfect world, Heath Ledger would still be alive. His career would have reached a point where he could do any project he desired, he would have been on that stage to accept his Academy Award for The Dark Knight, and he would have been ready and willing to play The Joker once again. But this is not a perfect world. It’s depressingly unfair. There are tragedies and heartbreaks beyond all eloquence, and there are voids that can never be filled no matter how much time passes. But we need to accept this, and keep fighting on. If the Batman movies have taught us anything, it’s that.

That’s why Nolan’s involvement for a third film is so crucial. His films are more than just fun comic book adventures. They’re morality plays in the guise of super hero stories. There are values to take out of them. They’re important. Art is important. And Nolan’s films have proven that these illustrated stories featuring a man dressing up as a bat can be seen as legitimate art. Tim Burton’s films were a step in the right direction. Joel Schumacher’s films, though entertaining and appropriate for all ages, were mostly a step back. Either knowingly or unknowingly, Christopher Nolan has sparked a revolution of the genre, and his films have set the standard by which all others will be judged. Maybe some people feel his Batman movies are overrated, and that as a director, Nolan himself is overrated, but I don’t think so. I think he and his films deserve every bit of praise they have received. Not unlike Batman, Nolan has moved forward with unflinching courage and determination in spite of impossible obstacles, and has become a figure we, as fans, can believe in. He faces more obstacles now more than ever. But our faith in Nolan as an artist has been richly rewarded so far, and I’m not alone in believing that all the faith may fade if Nolan steps down from doing the third Batman. Nolan understands the source material and has given us two great films, and even if the most talented of directors become attached it just wouldn’t be the same. After his takes on Batman, how can we accept anything less? How can we go back to anything without him? There’s no going back. He’s changed things. Forever.

Blu-ray cover art sucks.

What happened to the good old days of movie posters? When the advertisements themselves were works of art, had some effort put into them, and promised that a certain movie would be epic and awesome?

The digital age with DVD kicked in and suddenly the cover art started looking very awful. Giant heads floating around. Terrible photo-shopping. Perfectly good movie poster art started getting replaced with really crappily edited cover art.

It’s not getting any better with Blu-ray. I have no idea what’s going in some of the designers’ minds. Some are either terribly minimalist or have so much ridiculous, nonsensical photo-shopped shit flying around the small area of cover space that just looking upon it induces headaches and/or vomiting.

Take a look at a few examples of cover art for upcoming Blu-ray releases and you’ll see what I mean:

You can tell that they’re putting absolutely no effort whatsoever into the cover art. Which begs the question, why not just use the original poster art? They recycle all the special features most of the time, so why not that? We’re paying big bucks for titles that we probably already have on VHS and DVD, and God knows what other formats, so we should at least have some aesthetically pleasing art to look at in our collection, not some lazily photo-shopped garbage that was probably done by some visual design student for free instead of a professional artist.

  • Calendar

    • August 2020
      M T W T F S S
  • Search